A New Book Review is Coming!

Well, my dear readers, I've decided to abandon my previous statement about not bothering to review any other apologetic material after my review of David Aikman's Delusion of Disbelief. I've decided to go ahead and refute the 2008 book by theistic philosophers Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker titled Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God. Even though it will be like forcing myself to sit in a dentist's chair while he's drilling into my teeth without any Novocain, I like to keep my readers happy with new, original material so I thought I'd surprise you all with a new review.

I shall post the new refutation as soon as I am done. Until then, please feel free to read my other refutations:

The Truth Behind the New Atheism: A Refutation

Taking The Way of the Morons (master) to Task: The Evidence Bible Demolished

god Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof that the Atheist Doesn't Exist, by Ray Comfort: A Review

A New Book Review is Coming!

The Link Between Atheism & Communism is Still Broken

Despite christian apologists' desperate attempts to connect atheism to communism, not one person has been successful, even a Ph.D. in Russian History.

I actually responded to the above article, which was titled Atheism, by the absurd Atheism is Dead blogger Mariano, though only a section of the article dealt with communism. I had gotten an email back after posting my comment by someone from the creation.com website telling me how my criticisms were unfounded, and I responded to his email with some facts I didn't bother to post in my comment. However, neither my original comment to the article, nor my reply email were responded to or posted. But just today while doing an internet search I came across another article responding to my comment I originally left on Mariano's Atheism article.

The following is the section of the above article speaking about me and my comment:

“Arizona Atheist” from the United States responded to our Atheism article, apparently not seeing the points it made linking atheism and communism:

I must say this article is one of the most ignorant pieces of propaganda I’ve read in a while…

To point out just one in countless errors, the author completely failed to show the link between atheism and communism. The author clearly doesn’t understand either, or else he wouldn’t have made such a huge error.

But you all go ahead and accept this hugely error ridden propaganda piece because the facts are what they are, despite the apologetic hype.

CMI’s Don Batten replies:

For an atheist with any sense of decency, the clear connection of atheism with communism is of course not a pleasant fact, but wishing it were not so should not be confused with it not being so.

Dear “Arizona Atheist”

Thanks for your feedback. At least you did not use vulgar language. I have passed your feedback to the author for his interest.

Please note the opening caveat at the beginning of the section:

“With regards to the correlation between atheism and Communism; it would be fallaciously simplistic to claim that atheism is the only motivating factor behind Communism and yet, it is certainly a major factor and the very premise upon which Communist ideology was built.”

Taking that caveat into account and considering the testimony from so many of the major players in communism of the importance of atheism to their political agenda, I fail to see how you could claim that: “ … the author completely failed to show the link between atheism and communism”.

It seems that you did not actually read the section you criticize. If you did actually read it, considering how much evidence the author produced, I don’t see how you could ever be convinced of the connection, which is patently clear.

For an atheist with any sense of decency, the clear connection of atheism with communism is of course not a pleasant fact, but wishing it were not so should not be confused with it not being so.

Sincerely,

Don Batten


I do not care if the author didn't intend to solely blame atheism; that's not the point. The point is that it wasn't a factor at all, and the author damn sure didn't give any facts to back that up.

And exactly what "testimony" of the communists did Mariano cite to "prove" his case? Well, let's look and see. Here is the entire section of the above article discussing Communism, with my comments interspersed in regular font:

12 Atheism and Communism

With regards to the correlation between atheism and Communism; it would be fallaciously simplistic to claim that atheism is the only motivating factor behind Communism and yet, it is certainly a major factor and the very premise upon which Communist ideology was built.

Let us simply consider the words of Communists leaders themselves and then the opinion of a major scholar in the research of Communism.

Karl Marx stated,

“Darwin’s book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view … Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”144

Now, just how is atheism related to evolution? The author's goal was to expose the atheistic root of Communist ideology, but includes quotes about evolution! That does nothing to prove atheism had anything to do with Communism; that's speaking about evolution's role in Communist belief, which is disputed. The fact that there are theistic evolutionists pretty much destroys this argument. Evolution is not a purely godless belief, since millions of theists hardily accept evolution and believe that their god guided the process, or at least jump started it. Of course, I, and many others, don't see this as a logical possibility since there is no evidence of a god and because it's not possible to disprove (especially) a Deistic-type god. I would say it's not wholly illogical to make that claim, though, because there is no evidence in favor for it, or against it, there's really no point in debating that at all.

Leon Trotsky elucidated further in, The ABC of Materialist Dialectics:

“We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our ‘free will’, but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebulae … Darwinism … was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.”

Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the USSR who modified Marxist doctrine as a Communist theoretician (1870–1924):

“Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism … a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy … Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion … Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism … This is beyond doubt … it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences.”145

Again, materialism is not synonymous with atheism! They are not the same thing!

Lenin also pointed out that “Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired … to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion” because this would merely “revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out.”

As I've explained elsewhere, the reason the Communists persecuted religious believers (though they were by far not the only group targeted) was because of their Communist ideology.

The logical and moral absurdity of charging Leninists with “harshness” while presupposing absolute materialism was well stated by Lenin himself, “when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism.”146

In this regard, it is interesting to note the words of Mao Zedong:

“You’d better have less conscience. Some of our comrades have too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means that they are not so Marxist. On this matter, we indeed have no conscience! Marxism is that brutal … .We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution”147 and “Look at World War II, at Hitler’s cruelty. The more cruelty, the more enthusiasm for revolution.”148

Lenin considered religion “irredeemably evil” because it hindered “the world Communist revolution”. This was because his morality was premised upon his movement, “Whatever helps the world Communist revolution is good; whatever hinders it is bad.”149

And this was because, “We deny all morality taken from superhuman or non-class conceptions … In what sense do we deny ethics, morals? In the sense in which they are preached by the bourgeoisie, which deduces these morals from god’s commandments. Of course, we say that we do not believe in god”150 and “We do not believe in eternal morality, and we expose all fables about morality.”151

Joseph Stalin became Soviet Union leader following Lenin’s death (1878–1953). In a very odd twisting of logic, atheist professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues that the atheist Stalin was a theist:

“ … it occurred to me—let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”152

His point was to attempt, as many of atheism’s activists do, to pretend that atheism is perfectly pure and unspotted while laying blame for Stalin’s brutality in the camp of theism. While this is utterly irresponsible, particularly for a professor of philosophy, may we not grant it and agree that every atheist is a theist who sees God in their own mirrors and thus, determined what is right and wrong?

As I've explained in my review of David Aikman's book (linked to above) atheism cannot be equated with a lack of morality, or moral relativity. That is not what atheism is.

President and Founder of the Union of the Militant Godless, Yemilian Yaroslavsky (né Minei Israilevich Gubelman), made it clear that Stalin,

“At a very early age … began to read Darwin and became an atheist” and that Stalin stated, “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God … I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense … Darwin. You must read it.”153

Note that here again we see the connection between atheism, Darwinism and Communism.

Therefore, he ended up combining “science” with atheism to the point of concluding,

“The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against all religious prejudices because it stands for science, whereas religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is the antithesis of science.”154

Time Magazine, 17 Feb. 1936, reported (“Godless Jubilee”) that there was a, “celebration by massed Communist delegations from all over Russia of the tenth anniversary of the founding in Moscow of the Union of the Militant Godless … active profession of atheism is the badge of a Communist.”

Darwin scholar and Marxist, Robert M. Young, wrote,

“I want to come back to Darwinian evolution. The connection is this: science and appeals to scientific socialism have been rooted in Darwinism by those who claimed that it provided a basis for Marxism … Aspects of evolutionism are consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was and remains as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists … ”155

In the preface to The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels wrote of Communism as, “The proposition which in my opinion is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory has done for biology.”156 He also wrote:

“The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes’s doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes [a war of all against all] and of the bourgeois economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus’ theory of population. When this conjuror’s trick has been performed . . . the same theories are transferred again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved.”

Mao Zedong affirmed:

“Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”157

These arguments are completely absurd, not to mention the fact that atheism is not the same thing as evolution, so how in the hell is the author showing how atheism was a factor with these quotes about evolution!!??

He further stated:

“I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others … People like me want to … satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me … People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people … Some say one has a responsibility for history. I don’t believe it. I am only concerned about developing myself.”158

Daniel J. Flynn wrote the following whilst referencing The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,159

“The roots of Marxist-Leninism are perhaps not to be found in Marx at all, but in a deviant version of Darwinism … applied to social questions with the same catastrophic results that occur when such ideas are applied to racial issues … In 1922 alone, more than 8,000 priests, monks, and nuns were executed in the Soviet Union … In 1967, Albania declared itself the world’s first officially atheist nation and reduced more than 2,000 churches and mosques to rubble or expropriated them for state use [from 1917 to 1969, the Communists destroyed 41,000 of Russia’s 48,000 churches] … Almost fifty percent of all Catholics were killed in Cambodia … Moslems saw more than 40% of their co-religionists killed. Mosques and The Koran were burned and Pol Pot’s henchmen sadistically forced followers of Islam to eat pork … The Romanian Secret Police encouraged prisoners to devise ‘reeducation’ programs. The leader of one such program named Eugen Turcanu devised especially diabolical measures to force seminarians to renounce their faith … Some had their heads repeatedly plunged into a bucket of urine and fecal matter while the guards intoned a parody of the baptismal rite.”

Trotskyite, Denzil Dean Harber (aka Paul Dixon), writes of, “the materialist basis upon which Marxism stands” and that there were “anti-religious tests for the Army and Civil Service” that were later abolished due to a tentative policy which he described as due to “The Left zig-zag of the bureaucracy [which] was inevitably followed by a turn to the right.”160 He also mentions that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union established the Society of Militant Atheists which published a journal: The Atheist.

In 1983 Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008) described his credentials thus:

“I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval.”161

We therefore, come to Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion from his Templeton Address, Men Have Forgotten God :

“It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that ‘revolution must necessarily begin with atheism’. That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot …

“But there is something they did not expect: that in a land where churches have been leveled, where a triumphant atheism has rampaged uncontrolled for two-thirds of a century, where the clergy is utterly humiliated and deprived of all independence, where what remains of the Church as an institution is tolerated only for the sake of propaganda directed at the West, where even today people are sent to the labor camps for their faith, and where, within the camps themselves, those who gather to pray at Easter are clapped in punishment cells—they could not suppose that beneath this Communist steamroller the Christian tradition would survive in Russia. It is true that millions of our countrymen have been corrupted and spiritually devastated by an officially imposed atheism, yet there remain many millions of believers: it is only external pressures that keep them from speaking out, but, as is always the case in times of persecution and suffering, the awareness of God in my country has attained great acuteness and profundity …

“The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system …

“Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism …

“Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society …

“All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.”

The best response that atheists have been able to muster against the logical, ideological and historical correlation between atheism and Communism is to state that since atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s) it does nothing, inspires nothing and is therefore, responsible for nothing. This is either the greatest scholarly hoax since The Jesus Seminar or the utter bankruptcy of atheist activists’ attempts to play on the ignorance of history of their adherents. Firstly, this is only one, conveniently self-serving, definition of “atheism”. Secondly, even granting the lack of belief in god(s) interpretation of atheism we note that this makes atheism a blank canvas upon which each atheist, Communist leader or not, can paint a particular worldview of their choosing and completely unrestrained by any god(s).

Of course, the author simply gives lip service to this argument and fails to show how atheism is able to influence someone. Even more amazingly, the author actually confirms my argument about atheism being unable to influence someone since he admitted that atheism is a "blank canvas!" In trying to weasel his way out of the impossibility of atheism having its own ideology, the author just confirmed what I've said all along. That it was the Communist ideology; not atheism in any way. Finally, that last line is a hoot, because I've never seen any gods 'restrain' any of the abortion doctors' murderers, or any of the participants of the many religious wars and persecutions that have taken place throughout history.

Other atheists actually make reference to higher population levels and sophisticated weaponry in explaining away the fact that the most secular century in human history was also the bloodiest. That there are merely more people to murder is certainly a fascinating excuse as bloodthirsty regimes have never been at a loss for victims. That sophisticated weaponry is to be blamed means that atheists are blaming scientists/engineers for inventing ever more efficient ways of committing mass murder. However, this pseudo-counterargument does not take into consideration that one of the unique features of Communist regimes was that millions upon millions of their comrades where not killed whilst fighting wars but were systematically murdered by their own leaders. And this was often carried out by very primitive means and employing very rudimentary weapons: starvation, lack of healthcare and executions by torture and single bullets fired from rifles or even machine guns does not need sophisticated weaponry.

Vox Day notes:

“Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … .163

“The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.164

“The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

“Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!”165

For more, see: Communism and Nazism Q&A

Once again, just because these dictators were atheists is no evidence showing that it was their lack of belief that caused them to commit those horrors! It was the Communist ideology plain and simple, as I've shown with actual quotes of Lenin in my post Communism and Atheism: Revised and Updated, linked to previously. Because of the more detailed treatment I've given this topic I didn't go into as much detail in my responses as I could have. My article about it should clear up any confusion and refute the propaganda of these stupid apologists.

As I had said in my comment that was never published on the original Atheism article, the author utterly failed to prove in any way how atheism was a factor. Like all arguments supposedly linking atheism to Communism, the authors either have to equate atheism with a hatred of religion, or evolution, which is a complete misunderstanding to say the least!

NOTE: The former author of Atheism is Dead had attempted a refutation of this blog post, but I responded and even more throughly refuted his silly claims in a series of posts, which can be found here.

The Link Between Atheism & Communism is Still Broken

The Power of Science - An HIV Vaccine Has Been Created

I've said it countless times before. Religion's prayers, hopes and dreams, have been shattered by science. And once again, when countless prayers and and a supposedly loving god fails to help his creations, science swoops in to help. The first successful trial of an HIV vaccine was reported today on Yahoo.com, which helped to reduce infections by more than 31 percent.

Below is the story:

A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and MICHAEL CASEY, Associated Press Writers Marilynn Marchione And Michael Casey, Associated Press Writers – Thu Sep 24, 3:27 am ET

BANGKOK – For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.

The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.

"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said in a telephone interview. "This is something that we can do."

Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, the U.N. agency UNAIDS estimates.

"Today marks an historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.

"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.

The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.

"This is a scientific breakthrough," Thai Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai told a news conference in Bangkok. "For the first time ever there is evidence that HIV vaccine has preventative efficacy."

The study actually tested a two-vaccine combo in a "prime-boost" approach, where the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.

They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.

ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus — dead or alive — and cannot cause HIV.

Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.

"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result," Fauci confessed.

The results proved the skeptics wrong.

"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members," said the Army's Kim, a physician who manages the Army's HIV vaccine program.

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.

The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study — seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.

That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial," Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.

"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades of vaccine research, Fauci said.

Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.

This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.

In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials — the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.

It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.

Also unclear is whether Thai volunteers who received dummy shots will now be offered the vaccine. Researchers had said they would do so if the vaccine showed clear benefit — defined as reducing the risk of infection by at least 50 percent.

Those issues, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long will protection last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.

The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.

___

Associated Press Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Minneapolis.

The Power of Science - An HIV Vaccine Has Been Created

Speed Cameras Are Inaccurate and Dangerous

I've written about the danger of speed cameras in the past, but I found this older story from 2005 about speed camera statistics in Europe. Europe is a good model to watch because they have had speed cameras for many more years and we can look to see what very well could be in store for the U.S. Based on many of the studies, accidents, and privacy implications, speed cameras are not only dangerous and intrusive, but also can be very inaccurate. Below is a news story about this.





Here is a report showing that there was an increase of 48 more accidents than the previous year after the installation of the cameras. The story is below:

Speed cameras 'may cause accidents'
Published by Jay Adair
25 June 2005, 16:42

Fresh doubts over the value of speed cameras were raised yesterday after a surge in accidents at sites where they are installed. Official papers show that the number of crashes rose instead of fell at 70 sites in London.

At 32 speed camera sites there were an average of 48 more accidents involving death or serious injury over 12 months compared with previous years. At 38 traffic light camera sites there were on average 62 more accidents, Association of London Government papers show. An investigation has now been ordered into why the cameras have not cut deaths and injuries. Some could be ripped out.

At other sites engineers will design traffic-calming schemes - in addition to the cameras.

Experts today claimed drivers were "distracted" by cameras and forced to look at their speedometers instead of the road. The alert comes after West Midlands police announced plans to remove 10 cameras and take film out of 150 more after fears they were endangering road safety.

Transport experts are baffled by the rise in accidents at specific sites in London. Overall, cameras cut accidents by 21 per cent, a study by the Transport Research Laboratory shows.

London's remaining 730 speed and red-light cameras have all seen accident levels fall, according to the London Safety Camera Partnership, made up of councils, police and TfL.

The association's report says: "The partnership will review the sites where collisions have increased. The review will include casualty/collision analysis, collision mapping and speed survey data." Some cameras will be replaced by electronic signposts which, instead of fining drivers, display their speeds.

Each investigation will cost about £500, costing the partnership £35,000. A partnership spokesman said possible reasons for the cameras ' failure included rising traffic-levels and accidents caused by factors other than speed. He said there could be "individual reasons" at each site.

Possible solutions include changing street lighting, road markings and junction layouts and re-phasing traffic lights.

The investigation has prompted demands for an overhaul of the Government's speed camera policy. Paul Smith of SafeSpeed said cameras were "nowhere near as effective" as claimed.

In 50mph zones policed by cameras, drivers spent so long studying their speedometers that they missed 40 per cent of what happened in the road ahead, he claimed.

Edmund King of the RAC Foundation said: "It is highly worrying that accidents are going up. There could be conflict between motorists who slow down for cameras and the growing underclass of unregistered drivers who do not."

Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said: " Cameras are sometimes the best answer but not always."

Credit
thisislondon.co.uk

Speed Cameras Are Inaccurate and Dangerous

New Mexico Police Brutality

This horrible incident took place in July, where a cop actually tasers a girl in the head for nothing but allegedly running away. I guess those fitness requirements cops are supposed to adhere to aren't being enforced, judging from the countless out of shape pigs everywhere. The pig could probably have just run after her, but I guess he was too much of a fat lazy asshole to do that. I wonder if this pig has a huge pot belly like so many other pigs, where his lard hangs over his weapon belt, or as I like to think of it, his instruments of mayhem that he uses on the innocent!

Here is the story from www.wwmt.com:

Policeman hits New Mexican girl in head with Taser
July 07, 2009 8:07 AM


NEW MEXICO (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - A girl from New Mexico is recovering after being hit in the head with a Taser by police.

It all started when the 14 year old got in a fight with her mother. Her mom drove her to the police station looking for help.

When they got there the girl took off running and the police chief later found her in a nearby park.

When he approached the girl the chief says she took off running again. He says he told her to stop, but when she didn't, he hit her with the Taser.

The girl says that's not what happened.

"He didn't try to do anything, he just decided to use the Taser," said the girl.

The Taser hit the girl in the head and back. She fell and a stick got lodged in her face. She had to have surgery and now has staples in her head where the Taser hit her.

The girl's mother says she's outraged and filed a lawsuit against the police department.

The police chief says he defends his actions.

New Mexico Police Brutality

Christian Apologists Are Pathetic

I've been blogging for a little over two years now and I can honestly say that it's extremely rare for someone to actually offer arguments against my positions and claims. More often then not I'm continuously insulted, with my accuser leaving my arguments untouched and misconstrued.

Occasionally I search the internet of any mention of me or my blog in the hopes of a christian who actually tries to rebut my arguments. So far all attempts have failed. The latest brain dead hag who resorts to nothing but insults can be found at the theologyweb.com forums from a post dated from April of this year about my post outlining the majority of arguments for god that have been put forward.

Like the last christian who tried refuting my arguments in that post I got nothing but a load of insults, misunderstandings, and a hardy showcasing of pure ignorance and stupidity.

Here are two screenshots of what this idiot puts forward as his 'critique.'



"Darth Executer" (whatever the fuck that means) doesn't start off very good with the following gem:

"Don't confuse the poor man with your philosophizing or arguments or anything. I've seen people who are stupid and won't admit they are stupid, but this is the first time I've seen someone admit they are stupid and not realize they're stupid."

There is so much bullshit that actually passes for "clear" thinking and "good" philosophy that it's sickening. Case in point are the Ontological arguments for god's existence, and the idiot neglected to cite my evidence for my reasoning about why things that seem logical actually aren't when the evidence and facts are rationally examined.

Add another non-argument and insult to the list:

"Add arrogance to stupidity. "God can't be moral because His actions don't fit my whims...."

This moron clearly missed my entire point! I was explaining why both the commands nor actions of god can be considered moral, therefore we can dismiss god as a source of morality! It has nothing to do whatsoever about god bowing down to my wishes, but the hypocrisy of their god.

"I don't really like the cosmological argument. I think we just don't have the scientific knowledge to support or disprove it. That said, this has to be a textbook example of fundy atheist illiteracy:

[quoting me]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

There are a few major flaws with this. First, theologians assume that nothing can be eternal;

Where? Whoops, nowhere in the argument does it say "nothing can be eternal". Back to 1st grade.

This jackass needs to go back to theology 101 because while that argument doesn't explicity state that "nothing can be eternal" (I was referring to everything but god, by the way, which I've since then revised the passage a bit to make it easier to understand) the argument rests on the very assumption that god is eternal and that the universe can't possibly be eternal but god can!!!

Just like Joe Hinman, he obviously isn't aware of the most recent research showing that the universe could be eternal.

"No, cretin, it assumes the universe began to exist. And it's not really an assumption either. Ever heard of the Big Bang?"

As I had to point out to poor old Joey [Hinman], there is research I cited in my paper which shows that the universe very well could be eternal and did not need a cause. But of course, this childish asshole neglects to post any of that! And as I had to do with Hinman, as I obliterated his arguments about the Big Bang, I've got to break it to this kid and tell him that the Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of the universe itself, but possibly a continuation of a cycle of "bangs" and "cruches" into eternity; the creation of this present universe, but not the matter of the universe itself.

"Your lack of literacy is not hypocrisy and nonsense on somebody else's part. Is "the universe is not eternal" the same as "nothing can be eternal"? In atheist fundyland it is, apparently.

This bit at the end is a real hoot though:..."

Seems to me this guy is the one that needs to go back to first grade to learn how to read. If there is any inconsistency in my post no one has pointed any out. And this moron clearly didn't understand a damn thing I said.

He finally ends his childish rant with this...

"As can be seen above, this isn't true. It took me a couple of minutes of skimming to see a blatantly obvious strawman of an argument I don't even have a bone in. AA is either a liar or a moron."

and...

"Oh yes, there's the gold standard of excellence."

...when I made a statement about my being sure of not creating any strawmen and consulting books of philosophers who know these arguments better than myself, including former theists like John Loftus.

Of course, this dip shit fails to cite even one strawman that I supposedly erected.

Sorry about the vulgarity folks...usually I don't insult my detractors quite that much, but this little moron annoyed me with his inane babbling and I'm getting tired of cry baby theists who whine about atheists insulting them, when they do it just as much, if not more! Talk about hypocrisy!

If this is what myself and other atheists have to look forward to in the way of "arguments" and "refutations" then I think materialism and atheism are safe and sound, untouched by silly little theists and their silly little brain disorder: Not being able to think (or read) clearly.

Update - 4-12-10

I happened to be poking around the forums at theologyweb and remembered this jackass who posted this nonsensical post about me. In the post he referred to another theologyweb forum member named "DJ", who he claims "links to" my Against the Gods post "approvingly". I just found out that "DJ" is the forum member named "Doubting John", or John Loftus. This idiot clearly can't read because Mr. Loftus didn't "approvingly" do anything! I emailed him to ask if he'd like to read over my paper Against the Gods and point out any problems in my rebuttals. He stated very clearly in the blog post:

He'd like some feedback on this blog post and I don't have the time right now. He writes:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence).

Do you think he makes his case? Link [link to my blog post not inserted]

That's all he said. Does that sound anything like approval?! No! All Mr. Loftus said is that I'd like some feedback and asked his readers to comment! Which, by the way, with the exception of this idiot and Joe Hinman (both of whom I've refuted their pathetic attempts at rebutting the paper), not a single person has stepped up to offer a rebuttal.

Christian Apologists Are Pathetic

Anarchism: A Philosophical & Scientific Justification

Update: It looks as if I read too much into Robert Lanza's book. I had read it from the standpoint of Bob Clapp's philosophy, in that each individuals' consciousness is necessary to bring things into existence. Now, this does not mean that our consciousness physically brings things into existence, it is only observable because of our consciousness.

I first heard about this book, Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Key to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, in a science magazine and the next day mentioned it to Bob who had already heard about it. He was very excited that there seemed to be scientific proof of his philosophical position. After buying the book I read it, but at that time I did not fully grasp Lanza's view that the world would not physically exist without a mind, or that with your thoughts things can be made to happen. This new age crap went entirely over my head because I misinterpreted what Lanza was actually arguing due to my preconceptions about what the book was about.

After reading Victor J. Stenger's excellent book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, wherein he tackles these new age claims that attempt to distort science in order to make their new age nonsense sound legitimate, I realized what Lanza was actually talking about. I feel foolish for advocating this book but, like Bob, I was excited that science seemed to be on to something interesting but Stenger's book clearly explains why Biocentrism is nonsense.

With that being said, you can forget everything I said below about this book and these supposedly “scientific” findings. However, philosophically, Bob's first principle still stands firm.






Anarchism comes from the root word (in Greek) anarchos, which means “without rulers." Anarchism can be divided along either socialistic or individualistic lines. Socialist anarchism rejects private property and believes it to be the root of social inequalities, while individual anarchism highly values the individual, private property, ownership, and personal autonomy.

I hold to the individualist branch of anarchism so this is what I will be arguing for. As I've argued in the past, I believe it to be most ethical to allow each individual to create voluntary contracts with other human beings in order to keep a majority from oppressing or creating unfair conditions for the minority.

Anything other than a completely voluntary social contract between each individual ultimately results in tyranny at some level. Many atheists would be familiar with the situation where theists use their numbers to suppress potentially life-saving benefits from stem-cell research and the suppression of rights of homosexuals in those states that banned gay marriage.

I don't think any freethinker would tolerate such bigotry and ignorance and yet they uphold the system that allows the theists to do it in the first place. Why?

Several months ago I was having a discussion in the comments section with another atheist about government and we both acknowledged our very different starting points. He viewed everything through the lens of the society as a whole, while I was viewing things from the perspective of the individual.

Much like the chasm that will likely never be filled between theists and atheists, statists and anarchists will probably never see eye to eye on this philosophical question, but like the theists' refusal to see the overwhelming evidence that there is likely no supernatural realm, statists may very well continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Prime reigns supreme.

Like the evidence against the supernatural, the evidence that the individual human being is all there is, is overwhelming.

With each individuals' consciousness they perceive the world and other people around them, as do others. Without each individuals' consciousness, nothing would exist, including other people. This is the first proof.

Second, as demonstrated in Robert Lanza and Bob Berman's book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Key to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, it's been scientifically proven through quantum mechanics experiments that particles are linked to an individuals' presence and that without a conscious observer these particles exist in an "undetermined state of probability waves" and only until a conscious agent perceives them do they collapse out of "superposition" and come into existence. Basically, what this means is that no particles truly exist in the universe without consciousness to bring them forth. I would highly recommend the book so you can get a more detailed explanation for this scientific evidence.

Another argument I shall put forth is that it is true that individuals come together to form groups and large societies, however, what is that society composed of? Individuals! And as I already explained above, it is unethical for any individual to coerce or harm another, which is exactly what government and democracy allows individuals to do to other individuals. I will continue to argue that the social contract is the most ethical form of interaction between individuals because it avoids the two forms of tyranny that run rampant within today's world: coercion and force.

Until this is realized millions of innocent individuals shall be enslaved and forced against their own will to abide by the laws of others; some of which infringe upon the rights of every individual who make up a particular minority.

Once this fact is realized, that the individual human being is all there is, how can one claim that a society even truly exists? It wouldn't if not for each individual and each individuals' consciousness.

The social structure is backwards. Everyone views everything from a top-down approach, which is how theisms and statisms operate. But reality dictates a bottom-up approach that takes every individual into account, so as to protect their individual freedoms.

Tracing the steps backwards, by looking at morality at the individual level, we all know and can understand that we would never want to be harmed or violated in some way, and so we can rightfully project that towards others, who are most likely very much like ourselves. We can then come to a reasonable conclusion that they would not want to be harmed either, so we respect that just as we would want to be respected.

Because of this, any action that violates or harms any individual is by default wrong and can be considered evil.

I will now cover one of the most likely arguments that will come my way. That of the so called “necessary evil.”

Is government a “necessary evil?” I would say no, it's not. I've given many examples of how a society can be organized in various ways to function without government. If we human beings can come together as individuals, and realize each of us as such, we could create a living situation that was fair to everyone.

So, let me ask again. Why do you tolerate government? The very thing that stifles and harms Prime?

Anarchism: A Philosophical & Scientific Justification

Creationism's Trojan Horse with Barbara Forrest

In 2007 The Center for Inquiry hosted a talk by Barbara Forrest called "Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse", which is what this post is about.

Barbara Forrest's book Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design is a fantastic book that exposes the intelligent design proponents' plan to sneak religion back into public schools, and their often immature and dishonest tactics, which I am very familiar with from my dealings with christian apologists who also advocate intelligent design, though they try to keep that fact under wraps.

A few months ago I found a first edition hardcover of Creationism's Trojan Horse in a used bookstore and I throughly enjoyed it. It's very well researched, just as Forrest's speech is in the following video.


Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



Part 6:



Part 7:



Part 8:



Part 9:



Part 10:

Creationism's Trojan Horse with Barbara Forrest

Unplug Yourselves from the Matrix

In the 1999 film The Matrix Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, is asked by Morpheus, played by Laurence Fishburne, if he'd like to take either the red pill or the blue pill. If he takes the blue pill he will not be shown the reality he lives in. If he takes the red pill he will see reality as it is, and if he does this there is no turning back.

I feel as if the last few years I have chosen to take the red pill and I must admit the truth is not pretty. Sarcastically, I sometimes wish I would have taken the blue pill, only because I can see how a life of delusion, believing everything is A-OK, is a nice way to live. You don't have to constantly worry about and feel violated when the government spies on you, or a police officer tasers someone for no reason, making you wonder how he could get away with it. Aren't police officers here to "serve and protect" and not harm and murder people?

I feel fortunate that I am one who is not fooled by the propaganda that many call "news," though it's very unfortunate when even very bright individuals are fooled by it. Are blinded by it.

My blog is about the truth and it's unfortunate that the truth often isn't pretty. But this reminds me of something I read on the back of my friend Bob Clapp's book, Every Man and Woman an Island:

"Truth is a point never to be broken, worn or blunted. It is sure to hurt those who touch it; and likely to draw blood of those who press earnestly upon it."

- Imaginary Conversations

I declare that anyone who reads my blog is getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and my hope is that it will scrape the scales off of many peoples' eyes who read it. Many people claim to seek truth but few truly walk that path. Most seem to take short cuts that lead them to dead ends or they completely get off the trail all together. Many even contradict themselves and tell outright lies. Things that couldn't be further from the truth. This is very much the case with many statists and especially with christian apologists. It disgusts me when people claim to be about the truth and then hide it or distort it for whatever reason.

My adherence to the truth is what keeps me writing this blog. Arizona Atheist certainly isn't the most popular blog on the net (on average I get about 1,000 visits a month), but I don't care much for numbers. It's only to be expected since so few are truly ready to take the red pill and follow me down the "rabbit hole" where there is no turning back.

If you are a regular reader I greatly appreciate your readership; if you are new here or have simply stumbled upon my blog: Welcome.

Now, dear reader, which are you going to choose? The red pill, or the blue pill? Truth or delusion? It's your choice.

Unplug Yourselves from the Matrix

The Lucifer Effect - September 2009

I've collected so many videos for up and coming Lucifer Effect posts that I've decided to post a few for this month to use some of them up. These are truly despicable. Sit back and watch the horror of the government's hired henchmen - pigs - out of control.





Here, a 15 year old girl is brutally attacked by a pig who over-reacts.





The young girl in the above video can be seen here speaking out about her horrible treatment and beating at the hands of that sadistic asshole.





Next, here is some local police brutality and "misconduct" that took place right here in Arizona.





Here, on May 10, 2009, a cop puts an innocent man in a coma by slamming his head against a wall. King County Deputy Matt Paul brutally attacked 29-year-old Christopher Harris after being wrongly accused by witnesses of being involved in a fight. I could not find any updated information on Harris' current condition.





To that stupid fuck John Urquhart: This was no "accident", it was another case of abuse of power and excessive force!!! FUCK YOU! The same to that pig who severely injured that innocent man!!! If anyone wants to see a perfect example of the government's distortion and twisting of language, this is it! Trying to claim that this crime is actually an "accident" and a case of "probable cause" is insane! The much larger pig could easily have grabbed this man but decides to do what cops do best: hurt innocent people for no reason.


Even the beautiful Hawaiian islands are not safe from sadistic pigs.





Finally, here is yet another pig trying to push around some innocent teenagers because he feels the need to puff up his fragile ego. How much do you want to bet this asshole was the school bully? I don't doubt that those are likely a large majority of people who eventually become pigs.

The Lucifer Effect - September 2009